User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 3

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 2 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 3 Archive 4
All talk threads for the second quarter of 2011

Issue found in cleanup[edit]

Tripped over portals with {{header}} at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolutions. Now I can get a bot to run over them and to apply the right bits (well I think that I can work it out). If you want to design the right underlying portal header to apply, I can go and plug them in. Unless you look at them and think that the pages themselves need greater review. Noting that we would be killing the indexes template completely in this pages. Billinghurst (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot-work. I started converting these subpages over to {{portal header}} but it was around the time of the software update and it interfered with the process a little (I got to 1962). The approach I used was:
  1. Change "header" (or "header2") to "portal header"
  2. Append the year to the title, i.e. United Nations Security Council Resolutions (1962)
  3. Change next and previous to be relative links (User talk:AdamBMorgan/1961), rather than absolute as they are now. (The previous link isn't used but, when I was converting them, I thought that might change in the future and, as they exist already, they might as well stay.)
  4. Move the section text into notes
  5. Remove the author parameter entirely
For example Portal:United Nations Security Council Resolutions/1962. I think that should all be possible but I'm not too familiar with bots. The indexes templates are a little redundant on these subpages as they only point to the parent page and the United Nations page (which is linked from the parent anyway). I'm planning to learn more about python/bots so I can try to maintain things like this myself but this may take a little time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Good, thanks. I am a base level botter, and not a hacker, which is why I am AWBing. Billinghurst (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Plus I have found the one issue with slashes as separators, when we use subpages of a portal, then the separation fails. Now this could be a game stopper, or we learn to point to the parent page. I think we should explore with regard to the second option, as I like the methodology. Billinghurst (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The second option does seem like a good idea. Did this problem occur very often? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. It was a ‘stumble upon’ issue, so it is going to take investigation, or be discovered by screams.<shrug> I will try to give it some time in the next couple of days by looking at where we have subpages to portals. So when I am out wandering that space, I will try to think through the issue of when and when we do not spawn subpages versus a root level page, and that is probably around the level of detail on the pages, <blah power n> … Billinghurst (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


More thinking, and testing my thinking, so please challenge it fiercely. The bit after the forwardslash as a descriptor, specific identifier. If we have PEOPLE in the portal space, I presume that they are not directly part of the LOC catalogue, they are sub-bits. If we are linking to PEOPLE from the main ns, then it is likely to be from the body of a document, rather than from the header, hence the forward slash issue disappears. So can we look to put people at [[Portal:People/Joe Bloggs]] or some variation? If this does make sense, and works for you, what is the jargon bits we might use to describe such in Wikisource:Naming conventions (or wherever) to help to work out what is a subject (for a portal) and what is the descriptor to pull to subpages. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to check, this is for portals for people who are not authors, isn't it? I had not thought about it until now. It would be similar to ships in Portal:Royal Navy (which I mean to work on eventually) and would provide a useful link from Wikipedia as well as the body of documents. Technically, subject specific people and biographical material can be filed under different classes (ie. soldiers under Military Science, composers under Music and so forth). This is actually the case already in a few cases under History (ie. Portal:Justinian I). On the other hand, it does make sense to put everyone together to create a simple convention for linking. Would you want to move the existing portals into Portal:People or point outwards from Portal:People to the existing portals? If the latter, provide links and/or create a redirect in the subpage to the separate portal?
Correct, not to replicate Author namespace, all OTHERS where we decide to collect data. I don't exactly know to what I am committing at this moment, I suppose that I am still teasing apart the threads. I thought about categorising people under a portal, then thought that was too subjective, and really that was more something for portal fields, and categories. I was thinking of SIMPLE and NPOV

So with your example, there may be people who are portals on their own right, or some who are not. I don't know whether that is a YES or a NO, but a good discussion point. If yes, and they started as a subpage and we reach the whatever criteria to promote, move them with a redirect, no big issue. My (simple) criteria would probably be that there are valid reasons to link to them from the portal parameter in a namespace header and that eliminates us using the forward slash, thus we move.

One more smaller issue: some of these subpages may list only a few works, which would normally restrict them to a section in, say, Portal:People rather than a subpage to themselves. In these cases, I would still create them as subpages regardless, to maintain consistency, but it's something to at least address before moving onwards. To bring these together, could the smaller pages stay as subpages, while the bigger pages are moved out to live on their own, leaving a redirect behind for simple linking? (This might mean a lot of redirects over time, although they would all be collected in one place.) - AdamBMorgan 18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Part of my reason for being a subpage is that they are easily transcludable, if ever they become their own namespace they are easily migratable, and if we so choose, even as subpages we can apply a specific template for them and that can be akin to something like {{creator}} and how that appears on something like the illustrator field at File:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu<shrug>I am still learning and unpacking this whole matter trying to understand better and look at a robust framework that has some flexibility.— billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The naming scheme should probably follow Author space (ie. Portal:People/John Smith rather than Portal:People/Smith, John). The Portal:People/ part will essentially act as an ad hoc namespace for non-authors. Portal:People itself might be a list of subpages and standalone people-portals, with some brief instructions (such as "not authors"). Is this intended to collect biographical/source information of non-authors; for the illustrators/editors/whatever of works on Wikisource with separate authors; or both? Should it list works (like an author page) or contain biographical data and links (like Creator: on Commons)? Real life is intruding a bit at the moment but I should be able to start the portal and a few examples soon (also Ships).- AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Still not done anything in this space yet, I'm in the middle of cleaning up the links-to the WS: namespace. Not sure where to have upwardly linked Portal:Rede Lecture so at some point of time if you could join its dots somewhere, that would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Text layer[edit]

Hello again,

Saw the Needs-OCR status for your Index:Massachusetts Historical Society series 3 volume 7.djvu earlier this month so I took a crack at it since I'm playing with hidden-text layers anyway.

Problem is, as you know, volume 8 is attached to the end of volume 7 for starters. The resulting OCR routines attempted produces a "fair" text-layer for one volume but not so much for the other (garbage in other words) no matter how I tried to slice it.

I went ahead and split off volume 8, Index:Massachusetts Historical Society series 3 volume 8.djvu, from your volume 7 and that produced the best results for workable text-layers the way I see it (& a higher DPI in the process). I'm leary of doing the same for volume 7 until you absorb this and check a few pages at least. — George Orwell III (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I see now this was one of those References to WS refreshes. OCR added. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was wondering how best to do this (I've downloaded DjVuLibre and some other things but I'm still working on it). Thanks again, AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Librivox help[edit]

I thought I remembered a User who worked with ogg files... I just stumbled across newly recorded audio for Florence Earle Coates' poem, "Near and Far"... Two recordings really struck my fancy (one male voice, one female), and I would like very much to be able to place them both on Mrs. Coates' corresponding pages (1898, 1916) here on WS... I can point you to the IA page they are listed on: In particular, the two files (ogg) that I am interested in are as follows:

OR, you can perhaps briefly give me some self-help guidelines (or point me to instructions) on how to upload them to Commons myself?? Thank You! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They should all start appearing in Commons:Category:LibriVox - Near and Far shortly. It was easy enough to do the entire collection in one go, so your choices will be among them and I haven't changed the filenames. I couldn't find any instructions either; I'll think about writing some soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I have applied my favorite audio file to the corresponding pages! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I followed the "crumbs" you left as you created the files/categories for the sound files, and came up with the following tentative steps for duplicating your handiwork. I am sure there are shortcuts, but this seems to do the trick! Thanks for getting it started for me! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. Save Ogg file from website to computer for upload.
  2. Upload Ogg file.
  3. Create Creator page, if necessary.
  4. Create LibriVox Poem category page.
  5. Create Author category page, if necessary.
  6. Create Librivox volunteer page, if necessary.
I hadn't thought of the volunteer page but yes that's pretty much it. The upload step is easier if you use URL2Commons on the Toolserver (you need a separate log-in for this but that just means registering). With that, you can copy-and-paste the URL of each file into the first box, set up a generic file description in the second and get the files automatically copied across to Commons. Before I heard about this, some earlier LibriVox collections took up a lot of my ISP's download limit. Some collections may need a little editing afterwards to make the description less generic but I find it is often easier and quicker than the direct upload. I really will try to write some help pages soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Top icon[edit]

Hey Adam,

I tried adding those bits of code to my css and js pages, and now there's no star at all. Ha, thanks for trying to help; don't worry about it. Unless it's a Chrome browser issue, it is likely me somehow. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement on this matter and its site-wide application. When the time comes, if I can be of any help, let me know. - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Portals by division of country[edit]

At Portal:Queensland we have it as Text by country. Queensland is a state, so is there a means to differentiate such as region, subsidiary government of a country/nation? It would apply for numbers of federated nations, especially where they were never independent nations. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've cleaned it up a bit and used the parent parameter to make it a child of Portal:Australia. I think Texts by country is still appropriate as long as the hierarchy is clear. This may need a better solution eventually but there are not many effected portals at the moment. Class I is a Wikisource original class (and a portal that existed before I started working on Portalspace) so it is easily changed if necessary. For instance, separating it by continent and then adding subclasses for states, cities, counties etc. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

need help[edit]

Dear AdamBMorgan

I just registered Law of Iran in the Portal:Law to link the project of documentation of Laws of Iran (not to be confused with Islamic Republic of Iran). Unfortunately, the Wikisource Farsi project lacks appropriate templates for the section law. Do you know how to program templates or do you know a template programmer who can help in developing templates for Farsi Wikisource. This person does not need to know Farsi(Persian) but should guide how to develop a template, how to implement it, etc.. --Bellavista1957 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to help. I can do some template programming. What did you want? Is there a specific template (or set of templates) you wanted? Do you want something more general instead? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Good morning! Peeking at the "Recent changes" page, I've been looking at your work on annotation, and wondering how I can/if I should try to apply any of that to the book I'm working on now... With regard to making subpages: For an Indexed work, would you create a subpage of the particular Index:page? (My project has annotations on most of the pages, as it is a legal piece with lots of terms/cases/persons, etc.) Then, what would you do about transcluding over into the Main? Would that require subpages for each individual chapter as well?... I created an "Appendix" (Glossary) of sorts as a subpage listing first-instance use of terms that I have wikilinked to in the text that users can refer to as they read throughout the whole text—just so the whole text isn't riddled with wikilinks...although there still exists a hint of blue on most pages(!) I link to this Glossary on each chapter page in the Main for reader reference (see notes section). I am interested in your opinion as to what I can do to make the work better! Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still making this up as I go along. Wikisource:Annotations is not approved and there appears to be no standard way to handle annotation. However, WS:Wikilinks, in the style guide, does state that wikilinks (at least, to sister sites like Wiktionary and Wikipedia) count as annotations. I only found out recently. I've read the style guide before; I must have just missed this part. Which is why I created an additional template to handle wikilink-annotations. However, regarding your text, and to the best of my knowledge:-
You don't need a subpage of the Index: page. You will probably need to create a separate version in the mainspace, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?/Annotated as well as matching subpages for each chapter (ie. Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?/Annotated/Prices of Commodities Cannot be Made Fair by Governmental Regulation). Then Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?/Glossary of Wikilinks needs to be moved to Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?/Annotated/Glossary of Wikilinks. Any wikilinks added to the text can use {{Annotation switch}} while added references can use {{Annotation}}. This will leave a "clean" version of Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty? in place as well as the wikilinked-and-annotated version to complement it.
Please bear in mind that I might be very wrong about all of this. As I said, I'm fairly new to the concept of this separation and I'm still trying to work it out for myself. Scriptorium may provide more (or, at least, wider) information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm going to print out the above (as well as the Annotation page you have begun work on) and read through it more thoroughly as I will be away from the computer, and have only just now read through it speedily. I think I get it though... As for the work I've already done, I'll continue to do the same, and leave it to the "powers that be" until a forthcoming "approved" method is agreed upon. In the meantime, I might just play with your suggestions in the near future and create Annotated versions—and also leave them to the "powers that be!" :) Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
On the run again, but I tried it with one term ("Lever Act") already, creating an Annotated subpage for the text's Introduction... Works! I'll work on it more in a bit...
The whole Intro to the "clean" version has now been de-wikilinktified... In the Notes section of the header template, I link to the annotated version; and in the Notes section of the header template there, I link to the ..Annotated/Glossary page... Does that seem okay in your opinion? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That looks good (again, assuming I know what I'm talking about). The annotated version could have a link back to the clean version (and possibly a note in the header to explain the annotations). Try putting {{Annotation header}} in the notes field; it already existed and I've been modifying it. Actually, I'm still tweaking all of the templates to get them to work properly. I've put them all (new and pre-existing templates) in a new Category:Annotation templates. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done , but can you look them over (original | annotated) and (at your leisure) change any wording you see fit to in the notes section...? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Fwiw... the only reason the Lever Act doesn't have its own WS page is nobody has got to addressing volume 40 & 41 of the US Statutes at Large project yet. I did a quick clean up of part of the Act but it is still far from complete & ready to transclude by any measure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Aah, well then—seeing as though I have an interest in the subject matter, I might give it a start tomorrow! Thanks! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be remiss if I didn't inject a bit of caution here as well. While it is neat to annotate what the author couldn't or wouldn't in footnotes or an appendix originally, we should avoid furthering any particular point of view here unintentionally while attempting to do so ourselves. In this case, both the Lever Act and subsequent amendments to it go legislatively "beyond" the single section of the act (Section 4) nearly always being targeted as the focus throughout the author's analysis.

To the unwitting reader, the author paints the intent of or the controversy with the Act as primarily revolving around section 4 rather than presenting the true content as it was passed as a whole (sections 1 thru (?)12) first and then go about highlighting section 4 in particular after that caveat was hopefully made clear enough to the reader.

In providing the Lever Act as passed and the act later amending it in its entirety, the reader can better make the determination on their own if the author really has valid argument in the piece or is engaged in some variant of making a mountain out of molehill (much like as frequently is the case even in today's politics and it's pundits, commentators, analysts, etc. and the law).

By annotating or citing only section 4 as it was after its amendment, we have unintentionally given undue weight to it that may or may not be warranted had the entire act, before and after, been also provided for proper context. Such are the pitfalls of annotation in my view and I that's why try to avoid going beyond simple interlinking. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You can count me in as an "unwitting reader!" Which is why I do not wish to stray any further than "simple interlinking" here... I neither have the knowledge nor the proper context to further "any particular point of view." I assume most books published have their own inherent biases... Simple interlinking should at least keep the author's intent where it should be, as well as the integrity of the text itself intact...
Which brings me to another question: It seems that WS Users might feel more "inclined" to take such "liberties" with annotated versions... It seems like a whole new set of guidelines would have to be created for the "proper" use of such pages... Yikes!... I am always open to suggestions and criticism... Thanks for your words of caution :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


I am Vaibhav Jain. We are crating a incubator version of Sanskrit Wikiquote. Sanskrit has a lot of verses and many verses are in Sanskrit Wikisource. Can you tell me which is a better place for verses:Wikiquote or Wikisource? Vibhijain (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that verses can be placed on both projects. The different projects use the verses in different ways. Wikisource should have a complete selection of all verses; Wikiquote will usually contain extracts and specific verses. Wikiquote collects and organises different verses (and other quotes) by topic as well as by author. This is not usually done on Wikisource. So, Sanskrit Wikiquote will probably not have all of the verses that Sanskrit Wikisource has. Sanskrit Wikiquote will, however, duplicate some of them and arrange them in different ways. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Adam, I am MikeLynch, also part of the projects in Sanskrit. I wanted some clarifications regarding the copyrights of the verses and works. Since their creators died around 500 years ago, is it safe to assume them in the Public domain, and hence void of any copyright? MikeLynch (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
500 year old works are definitely in the public domain. The Wikimedia computers are in Florida, so United States law applies. Under US law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain. If you decide to follow Indian law as well, copyrights expire 60 years after the author's death. So, if the author died in 1950 or earlier, their works are in the public domain in India. (You do not legally have to follow Indian law but some projects choose to do so anyway.) Either way, anything that old is safe. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Just needed that clarification. Thank you! MikeLynch (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Ice hockey[edit]

I removed the link to Wikinews on Portal:Ice hockey because it is stale—the latest addition there was last year, and the NHL scoreboard has been broken for over three years. Would it be OK to remove the link for these reasons? Thanks, Maxim (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in that case, go ahead. I didn't notice the issue. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NIST both standalone & Portal.[edit]

Saw you "thinking out loud" a little while ago and recalled at one point in time I had hoped to put all these sub-agencies under their main Executive Department as subpages. I was tinkering on different ways to accomplish this before your revamp and guess I forgot to undo that one agency was all. Sorry for the brain strain. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's good to know the background. I was browsing the portal namespace and thought I had hit a redirect at first. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

British Library[edit]

Is it the case that want of a laptop is the only thing that would stop you from coming? If that's the case I can look in to Wikimedia UK buying a laptop for loan at events which you might be able to use. So let me know! The Land (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The laptop is the big issue, although, as you suggest, I suppose I could use pencil & paper (I've done that in libraries before). If Wikimedia UK does have some available on the day I would appreciate it (and it may be handy for anyone else who does not own, or even cannot afford, their own laptop for these events). I've added my name to the list at Wikimedia UK anyway. I am curious how this could help Wikisource. The most obvious would be acquiring scanned works but that seems beyond the scope of the Editathon and a laptop. (I'm not actually sure how the British Library will feel about people scanning their books.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I left you a note on the labtop at,_British_Library#Attending, Sadads (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Another thought at the same place, my Microsoft one is giving me crap now...Sadads (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Annotation Switch & External links[edit]

Is it possible to perform an {{Annotation switch}} on an external link? I tried playing around with it here a couple different ways, but was unsuccessful. For reference/comparison, it is Reference #23 here in the Main. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got it, the = sign in the URL needed to be replaced by %3D. I think the equals sign being passed to the template made the software assume that the sign was part of the code (rather than just some text that is supposed to go through the code). I'll try to find a better way to do this than manually editing in "%3D" but it will work for the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Either I forgot to say "thank you"(?) or I said it somewhere else(?). Just in case, "Thanks!" Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's something I did wrong in recent days, I'll be more specific about it in a bit, but [annotated] external links are now acting "funny" and not directing the user to the specific page (see my initial example page above—which I believed worked initially after your "fix", but apparently no longer), but to the Main page of the intended "subpage" of the external site... Also, I have been reading posts to the WS Annotation Talk page, and will continue to keep an eye on any new developments. I recently completed the Earle text, which also has the corresponding annotated version, so I can make adjustments to it as suggestions or policy changes come about. Also, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my Talk page... A new(?) user seems to be making requests that I do not have an interest in handling... Perhaps you can refer them?? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It isn't working for me either... and I'm not sure why. This might take some time to figure out; the URL encoding should work anyway. I'll look at other wiki-template, experiment a bit and get back to you. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
At your leisure! It's not a huge deal. Thanks for checking :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

Can you help me figure out why the picture on this page ( is not showing the small-capped section of the caption? It works fine on all other pictures (page 152, same book) is a good example of what it should look like.

Thanks in advance. - Tannertsf (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a square bracket— [ —in the subsequent {{smaller block}} template where a curly bracket— { —should be. The computer was only reading it as one template and seemed to pick the second one. It's an easy typo to make; I keep doing it with {{running header}} for some reason. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Not sure whether you welcome suggestions or not, but I've seen your name cross my watchlist often enough it seems we have a few passing interests that intersect (passing that intersect? egad, my mixed metaphors); but I thought I'd ask if you were interested in helping to proofread Reversions in Modern Industrial Life; it seems like one of Author:Franklin Smith's less-theoretical and more practical works, and is obviously quite short as just an essay. If not, that's quite alright - but I figure asking people's help on specific works is a good way to get to know people. StateOfAvon (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I can proofread it for you, State of Avon. And if you have any other works for me to proofread, just let me know. - Tannertsf (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions and happy to help. It does look interesting (well, all of PSM tends to look interesting). I've proofread a few pages already; I can do more later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, it seems like PSM used to be a very high-brow and wonderful publication that merged the best of National Geographic, Life and PSM into one publication. A shame it's more about glossy photos of fighter planes today :( StateOfAvon (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Musical composition transcriptions[edit]

I saw your "name" on a couple "clean-up" edits for sheet music here, and was wondering if you knew what the "latest" was on WS with regard to transcribing sheet music. I just came across a great "presentation book" of six musical sketches by Wilson G. Smith entitled, "Autumn Sketches: A book of Autumnal Impressions for the Piano" (Opus 103). It includes illustrations by R. W. Hirchert (lithograph drawings) that accompany each musical piece along with "verse[s] of selected poetry, appropriate to the musical sketch." (Musical Canada, a monthly journal issue ca. 1913-1914). It would, I think, make a great addition to Wikisource, for I can't find a version of the "book" on Google Books or elsewhere... But I was wondering whether I would merely "transcribe" the pages which contain the musical composition (the songs themselves are without words) as images or if there is some other way...? The pages which contain the drawings/verses I would do similarly to how selections from Stops of Various Quills were done... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Found this, and will look it over in a few days... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As you might have already found, there was a suggestion for a way to transcribe musical notation but it stalled years ago. I think the person behind it actually left. If I recall correctly, it was to be based on Lilypond. It might get jump started again one day but in the mean time jpeg images are the only real way to represent sheet music on Wikisource. (There is some unicode notation but not enough to write sheet music properly.) Something in the style of Stops of Various Quills should work well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)